Calculations on the
system: another
dopant smaller than
(
,
after Shannon (1976)) for which we have potential parameters
(from Lewis and Catlow (1985)) consistent with all other ones.
The
reduction energy was evaluated according to
the procedure outlined in section 2000-08-10. Notation is the same.
In the following figure we compare the
reduction
energy as a function of the fraction of oxygen vacancies in the
structure (and NOT as a function of dopant composition) for the
different dopants. Subscripts are the effective ionic radii of the
dopants for 8-coordination, according to Shannon (1976):
No comparison with Kim's empirical equation (Kim, 1989), as we have already seen that the accord does not seem to be very good in the other cases.
opti conp defect maxcyc opt 200 maxcyc fit 200 dump every 1 ce3-50.dump title Ce3+ impurity end cell 5.329267 5.329267 5.329267 90.000000 90.000000 90.000000 fractional 5 Ce4 core 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3.7000 0.5000 0.0000 Sc core 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 0.5000 0.0000 O core 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.0770 0.8750 0.0000 Ce4 shel 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000 0.5000 0.0000 O shel 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 -2.0770 0.8750 0.0000 space 225 size 10.00000000 21.00000000 centre 0.00 0.00 0.00 impurity Ce3 0.00 0.00 0.00 species 2 Ce3 core -4.700000 Ce3 shel 7.700000 buck Ce4 shel O shel 1986.8300 0.351070 20.400 0.000 15.000 Sc core O shel 1299.4 0.33120 0.000 0.0 15.0 Ce3 shel O shel 1731.6181 0.363720 14.433 0.000 15.000 O shel O shel 22764.300 0.149000 27.890 0.000 15.000 spring Ce4 291.75000 Ce3 291.75000 O 27.290000